The Devil is God, while Jesus is Lucifer.

Author: RationalMadman ,

Posts

Total: 46
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
              
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,910
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
@RationalMadman.

Venus is Lucifer and Lucifer is Jesus, makes sense as a mythological representation.

The God and Satan principles maybe interchangeable, but are nonetheless opposed.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
When you say Lucifer are you referring to Lucifer or are you referring to what Christians call the devil?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Lucifer
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 349
Posts: 10,670
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @zedvictor4
They are not opposed. Satan is God testing you with temptation and punishing you for your sins.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @RationalMadman
The devil is a creature of God, no equal to God, and not God. 

Jesus Christ is the union between the created and The Uncreated, the incarnate Truth. If you are in tune with The Holy Spirit that proceeds from The Father and through The Son, you witness the transfiguration of Christ, seeing The Father in seeing the true Son. Christ being The Most Perfect Image of God, being God Himself, is simultaneously the bringer of light and The Light itself. The Light we speak of is not a natural created light, but the very transfiguring Uncreated Light of divinity.






EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
The Devil is always representative of the negative forces in creation, if it exists at all it's just a spiritual being and one that walks on the dark side. Jesus, is an incarnation, and if anything a representative of the positive forces in creation. Two sides two different forces. Jesus is not a fallen being and does not rebel against God so traditionally speaking I don't think he is Lucifer or what the Christian interpretation of Lucifer is. Jesus is the epitome of one who is always one with the Father, one who sacrifices every part of his being for the Creator. I don't think any being matches that passion or description other than Jesus Himself.
Is there any real reason or any scriptural passage as to why you keep trying to make Lucifer Jesus? BTW unblock me for God's sake, not even sure why you did in the first place.

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @RationalMadman
Lucifer

Pretty sure they are neither the devil nor Jesus. You made the topic so I assume you wouldn't mind going into a bit more detail as to why you think otherwise.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Lucifer is a name that only exists in translation, it's origin being in certain Latin translations of scripture, which carried over to some English translations such as the King James bible. It actually refers to the morning star, or the planet Venus which tends to become visible in the night sky before the sun rises. That is why it is also referred to as the bringer of light.

This creates a confusing situation where in one usage, the bible is refering to a king who took himself to be a god who came from heaven, the morning star. In the other usage, it refers to Jesus Christ Himself, who is both the bringer of light and light itself.

See post number 6.

In the west, Satan or the devil is associated with lucifer or given the name Lucifer. This has everything to do with old Latin translations of scripture making use of this name in the negative context. That is why also, the very same scripture that is referring to the king who took himself as a god is often interpreted in the west as having to do with Lucifer or Satan being a fallen angel.

The early Latin translations of scripture created a lot of confusion in the west. For example, the Orthodox Church does not accept nor has it ever accepted that because of Adam and Eve's transgression in the garden, all of humanity inherited their guilt. We do not have this understanding of "original sin" at all. In fact, because of this understanding of original sin, the Latin church in the west had to create doctrines such as the immaculate conception of Mary to explain how she could be the spotless and undefiled mother who gives her flesh to Christ's incarnation. The Orthodox Church has no need for such a doctrine, because we don't believe in original sin as the Latins do! One can not inherit guilt, to us this is preposterous.




Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @Mopac
So like I said in posts 3 and 8, not the devil or Jesus. Okay.

So Mopac, if the KJV is the bestest most correctest English version as you have claimed in the past then why is it the only English version to have what you identify as poor translation? None of the other versions use the word Lucifer to my knowledge. Certainly most of them do not.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @Mopac
Lucifer is a name that only exists in translation, it's origin being in certain Latin translations of scripture, which carried over to some English translations such as the King James bible. It actually refers to the morning star, or the planet Venus which tends to become visible in the night sky before the sun rises. That is why it is also referred to as the bringer of light.

Yeah I was going to say the scriptures aren't quite clear about who or what Lucifer is, or whether it is a who at all. Or maybe it is clear, but interpreted/translated poorly. 

The early Latin translations of scripture created a lot of confusion in the west. For example, the Orthodox Church does not accept nor has it ever accepted that because of Adam and Eve's transgression in the garden, all of humanity inherited their guilt. We do not have this understanding of "original sin" at all. In fact, because of this understanding of original sin, the Latin church in the west had to create doctrines such as the immaculate conception of Mary to explain how she could be the spotless and undefiled mother who gives her flesh to Christ's incarnation. The Orthodox Church has no need for such a doctrine, because we don't believe in original sin as the Latins do! One can not inherit guilt, to us this is preposterous.

Well this is my understanding as well, not only is the "original sin" doctrine that everyone inherits plain stupid it is contrary to the laws of creation. This also causes great confusion what the actual role of Jesus is dealing with sin and how that whole scenario is applied and how it relates to our lives. Then we have to continually explain to atheists that no, we don't pay for what Adam and Eve did lol and yes that is quite ignorant for anyone to claim that. 
So though I'm part of the "west" this does not apply to me either which is why it's always good to stay away from blanket statements because it comes off as you talking about everyone. Do you not live in the west?



Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @EtrnlVw
So though I'm part of the "west" this does not apply to me either which is why it's always good to stay away from blanket statements because it comes off as you talking about everyone.

Lol, you must not know Mopac that well. Blanket statements seem to be the only kind he is physically capable of.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Lol yeah he is a little labeler ain't he....he will probably go off on a tangent about "protestants" next. 
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @EtrnlVw
Bet you $5 it will be athiests first (I still win if he goes with secularists, socialists, or nihilists. Those are all synonyms in Mopacs "special" thesaurus).
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
I use the King James version because it is free from copywrite.


I could point out many things that could be translated better.

The SOURCE texts that the King James uses are closer to what the Orthodox Church uses as far as the New Testament is concerned. There are some discrepancies. 

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @Mopac
I use the King James version because it is free from copywrite.

Not because it is the most accurate then?

Which one is the most accurate?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @EtrnlVw
The blanket statements I make don't apply to you, because you aren't even a Christian.

That is even why you say that Jesus is an incarnation. You don't have an understanding of things that is in line with what the church teaches. To you that is not important, because you don't believe in the church anyway. You think you know better. What can I say? We don't share the same faith. 






Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
There is no easy answer for that. Some translations are better in certain aspects than others.

Personally when I use English translations, I use the Saint Athanasius Academy Septuigant English translation for the Old Testament, and The New King James(or sometimes the old King James because I like how it sounds when read out loud) for the new. The Revised Standard Version is popular for the New Testament with a lot of clergy I know, though I think the newer English Standard Version might be superior.

We can't all learn Greek, yeah? That is really the best way to go. Nowadays when I read the bible, I always have the Greek texts in front of me, even when I am reading in English. 




The old King James has another thing going for it that I appreciate. It easily has the largest vocabulary out of all the translations. Also, old English is a great deal more precise in a lot of ways than modern English. Whereas in modern English we just have "you", in old English "Ye" and "thee" actually are a great deal more specific.

That said, there are definitely places where The King James could be translated better. It is still, in my opinion, the most beautiful English translation for reciting scripture. When The King James is recited competently, it is very poetic.

Another thing nice about The King James is that the translators were courteous enough to italicize words that they would add to the translation in order to make clear what they believed was being conveyed. A lot of modern translations do not do this. The King James is a word for word translation, so this sort of thing is, I believe, in line with that spirit. 





Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,362
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @Mopac
So written communication in general is flawed because of how many languages exist. Is there a better way to communicate these ideas down the generations that is within our power and doesn't rely on potential translation errors? I can't think of any but if there is one we should use that instead. Do you agree?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Christ Himself said, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

The faith is revealed in walking it.

Through participation in the divine liturgy.

Through experiencing the mysteries.







Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
See, the faith isn't so much an idea to be communicated so much as it is abiding in The Eternal Way of Truth. It is a walk, a path to follow, a cross to bear.

It helps a great deal to receive instruction. That is what our clergy is set apart for. They act as parental guides, so to speak. They want those who they are instructing to grow into spiritual adults so that they can have a right and knowing relationship with God. 



Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,374
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
why do you follow what celebrities say?

your not a free thinker
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,910
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
@RationalMadman

Exactly.

As I said the God and Satan principles are interchangeable, but nonetheless opposed.

I was referring to the principles and not to the hypothetical deities and their mythical tests.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @Mopac
because you aren't even a Christian.

Neither is anyone else here who hasn't gone and joined the local Orthodox Catholic Church right Mo? nobody here is a Christian except for Mopac right? certainly no protestants here are Christians are they Mopac? so would it really matter whether or not my profile says I'm Christian? of course not according to you so this statement really doesn't hold any weight.

But any Christian should know what the recipe for being a Christian is according to Jesus and we all know that has nothing to do with becoming a Catholic or joining a religious organization. Sorry dear but try again.

The blanket statements I make don't apply to you

Excellent, then stop making them.

That is even why you say that Jesus is an incarnation.

Do you even know what that word means? or you just don't like it because your Catholic buddies don't use terms other religions use? If Jesus was not an incarnation what was he?
Incarnation-
a person who embodies in the flesh a deity
(in Christian theology) the embodiment of God the Son in human flesh as Jesus Christ.
a particular physical form or state : version
a living being embodying a deity or spirit.
the Incarnation, Theology. the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity assumed human form in the person of Jesus Christ and is completely both God and man.

 You don't have an understanding of things that is in line with what the church teaches.

I don't care what the self proclaimed "Orthodox Catholics" believe, I've always been much more into the heart of the Gospels and message of Jesus rather than religious authorities and religious control.

To you that is not important, because you don't believe in the church anyway.

I believe in the body of Christ, which is made up of those who abide in those teachings. But not your particular organization no, they are corrupt at the heart of their development and you can see that in the way you treat other believers just like the Pharisees and Sadducees did while Jesus walked the earth. I don't bow down to religious snobs, not ever.
If that is the way you wish to live your life and attempt to worship the Creator that is all your decision. 

You think you know better.

Lol, the one thing good about religious snobs is they are always hypocritical so their statements always apply to themselves. 

EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Bet you $5 it will be athiests first

I think I might have won the bet... his post is leaning more towards my claim. No protestants are Christian, only Orthodox Catholics lol. Well I don't even label myself that, but he lumps all people together who have not joined his organization.